UKPC- No PCN and £170 invoice from ZZPS debt collectors- What to do???

JustAUser

Coupon-mad said:

I think you could drop para 5 if it's the one about template letters, but there's no reason to remove later paragraphs from the Template.

Remove this from 2 as it's already in para 1:

"but liability is denied."

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to put in. I will add it in and see how it reads. It might be fine though and I'm just overthinking it. 

Le_Kirk pointed it out as well. Noted and edited. Thanks 

JustAUser

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Driver was unable to leave the car park due to the breakdown of the vehicle. There was insufficient signage to indicate as to whether the car park was usable on a weekday. The Defendant asked the train station cashier about the conditions of using the car park on a weekday. The Defendant decided against using the car park as the train station cashier did not know the answer.

Other paragraphs uploaded before remain the same of course. What do we think of this? 

B789

JustAUser said:
I am hesitant because the signage was quite clear at the beginning of the entrance, but didn't realise as I drove in because I was in a rush. But surely if it was that clear, then I would've seen my sign on my way inside the train station? So, I think I will use the paragraph 18-21 after all. 

You are overthinking this. You have just answered your own doubt with a Defence to it!!!

Coupon-mad

This is your defence so you must be comfortable with it.  It's yours to finalise.

To be fair, the template isn't absolutely set in stone and it does no harm to drop some of the more repetitive (ranty) bits of the Template (e.g. if you don't like my criticism of the clueless Circuit Judge fudgements in favour of PPCs!) but don't EVER remove the stuff that says the signs are unclear!

No way do you accept fault here, nor talk about being in a rush.   It's almost always about the signs in almost every case, so it's the last thing to remove from a defence.

JustAUser

B789 said:

JustAUser said:
I am hesitant because the signage was quite clear at the beginning of the entrance, but didn't realise as I drove in because I was in a rush. But surely if it was that clear, then I would've seen my sign on my way inside the train station? So, I think I will use the paragraph 18-21 after all. 

You are overthinking this. You have just answered your own doubt with a Defence to it!!!

You are right B789. I will indeed use those paragraphs 

JustAUser

Coupon-mad said:

This is your defence so you must be comfortable with it.  It's yours to finalise.

To be fair, the template isn't absolutely set in stone and it does no harm to drop some of the more repetitive (ranty) bits of the Template (e.g. if you don't like my criticism of the clueless Circuit Judge fudgements in favour of PPCs!) but don't EVER remove the stuff that says the signs are unclear!

No way do you accept fault here, nor talk about being in a rush.   It's almost always about the signs in almost every case, so it's the last thing to remove from a defence.

Thank you. I do like the ranty bits because they are valid and true, especially in unjust cases like these. I will use paragraph 5.

Yes, I will use paragraphs 18-21 here then  

JustAUser

Update from the landowner: 

"Hi [    ]

 

I have discussed your case again with UKPC and have managed to get them to reduce the fine to £60.

 

They are not prepared to cancel the fine completely as you have allowed the PCN to escalate to debt recovery stage. As a result UKPC have incurred costs to process the enforcement.

 

Kind regards" 

And whose fault was that in incurring costs? Good grief. Must I repeat myself?? 

B789

You don't pay UKPC anything as they are nothing more than bottom-dwelling scammers of the first order. They have not incurred any costs "to process the enforcement". You should also advise the landowner that an ex-clamper thug cannot issue a "fine" and calling it that elevates the scumbags to a status they are undeserving of and could never achieve.

As with all these UKPC/DCB Legal claims, they will eventually discontinue if you've used the robust Defence as advised on this forum.

Fruitcake

If the landowner is calling this charge a fine, then they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

patient_dream

JustAUser said:

Update from the landowner: 

"Hi [    ]

 

I have discussed your case again with UKPC and have managed to get them to reduce the fine to £60.

 

They are not prepared to cancel the fine completely as you have allowed the PCN to escalate to debt recovery stage. As a result UKPC have incurred costs to process the enforcement.

 

Kind regards" 

And whose fault was that in incurring costs? Good grief. Must I repeat myself?? 

What a load of old rubbish. UKPC Gargling sewage water again.

In the parking industry, debt collectors offer a "no win no fee" .... you did not pay them, hence they did not win, hence no fee to UKPC

UKPC told the landlord a blatant lie ..... how does the landlord feel about this ... his agent telling lies ????

A court judge would be right to hold UKPC or their daft legal in contempt for this PLUS a complete waste of the courts time

Your landlord should be asking for proof UKPC paid the debt collector and if UKPC have an invoice, they can forward it by return and not try to obtain a fake invoice

Best thing for UKPC is to fully cancel before they get in to a tangled web of DECIEPT.